hey guys time for another Q and a session the questions and the timestamps will be in the video description as well as links to patreon or subscribe star if you want slash your own questions or support the channel please check out the description so without further ado let's let's crack on Richard asked has anyone written an updated book on the changing historiography of World War two I'm interested in how theories waxed and waned I'd like to see an overview of how our understanding of World War two developed over the last 75 years and how different approaches were taking up modified or abandoned for example I was brought up to believe the war was a very close thing and by early 1941 it looked like Germany would inevitably triumph now our opinion seems to have shifted towards claiming the opposite that Germany could not have possibly won World War two could not have defeated the Soviet Union etc will these revised theories enjoy or will they in turn be challenged and displaced so the first thing I want to do is recommend the book and I'm gonna recommend this to everybody doesn't matter what country you're from and when I recommend it to everybody because it should be of interest to everybody even though this is this book is particularly written for an American audience I found it useful and I'm British so I find it useful so here's the bottom I recommend everybody should read this book okay it is the myth of the Eastern Front the nazi-soviet Ward American popular culture written by Smurfs ler and Davies I don't know if I've said them right name – I bought a zoom a little bit this is a book that I think everybody should get and the reason is because this goes into quite a lot of depth now it is on the American popular culture paths but it actually goes into the history of what happened just immediately after the wall which changed the perceptions of the way the historiography progressed immediately after the war and we're still paying the cost of that change interceptions I cants on the whole book or but basically what do you start what these guys start saying is that immediately after the war you had the Nuremberg trials and the trials going on in in the center of Europe for the Nazis or the National Socialists and what was happening was that the Americans especially and the British and the Soviets were all very much of the opinion that these guys needed to be punished executions you know the famous Nuremberg trials we've seen all that but what happened was and it happened very very quickly even before the trials are over maybe even the famous ones you start to get this shift in perception and it's brought on mainly by the Cold War because I don't know what the Year the Cold War exactly style whether you can predict we can get an exact date but it's certainly by the end of the second world war before the war's over the Cold War is beginning to heat up and you see this he mentions a period in 1946 where the Americans are kind of becoming more leaning towards the Germans even the Nazis themselves you know the National Socialist why because the Americans are in Germany they are looking after these people now and they kind of have a vested interest to get them on their side and also there's this great enemy in the East which is the Soviet Union and we have to play against them so it's like well maybe these Germans need protecting from that and also it's like oh maybe we can get them on our side maybe they can help us Iommi we can have another army you know that sort of thing so very very quickly opinion changes on the way that the you know the Germans are and the way that the National Socialists are and so while the executions do continue a lot of the guys who really should have been executed for crimes against humanity and all the other stuff the kind of actually let go and you know natural sources to this day still go all there was a show trial bla bla bla and yeah the worship trials he mentions the Soviets field trials but a lot of guys got off a lot of the guys got off the hook including many of the famous generals we know about like how older Manstein who committed war crimes have got he actually got a prison for it Guderian you know obviously some of the ones like title they got executed bought a lot actually got away with it and then went on to write memoirs which is also written in the books and the what happened was this perception changed the from the germans being the great enemy in the japanese been the great enemy to the Soviets and the russians being the great enemy so as a result the perceptions change and then they become open-minded to the germans which allows the influence of the germans in you know these guys talk about what how old a does this is where this is why I recommended it these guys talk about what how old are does to the historiography and I think it's really important that that this is why I'm saying read it because it's important how older gets put in charge of the u.s. historical division and he's pretty much given the chance to rewrite history you know I hate to use the term because I rewrite history I'm rewriting it now to anybody who this might be news to somebody oh really so technically this is rewriting history but he rewrites it in the bad way he distorts the history because his agenda is to paint the –jared the German van marked especially the army and not the SS as somehow separate they're not you know they're not committing crimes it's all the SS is fall it's all that madman Hitler's fault all the problems that happened in the war for the Germans can all be blamed to that bavarian corporal and the SS and the evil National Socialists and and these glorious German generals will just put the mind from the star and it's all Hitler's fault and it's just not it's not as true they point out it's just not true it these made it up and what's worse so the Americans know the American commander knows that he's kind of doing this but they don't really stop him from doing it and it's like what are you doing and they encourage him to go hey here's some documents you know have all the documents you want and to try and write a history of World War two so he you know he's there with all these documents I'm many incriminating evidence just just want to take that oh I've lost it was it gone now you know it's like are you kidding me you gave the German generals like how the all the evidence that you had which they just towards shreds then we may long have that evidence because they got rid of it yeah you did that Wow how much information how many you know questions about World War two and how many things that we don't know about now have been ruined because Haldor was given those documents it's not just Haldor he's like the main guy in charge but it was a lot of them it's unbelievable really a lot of the questions we have about World War two could have been answered if this hadn't have happened and unfortunately all of the myths now start coming into it how that paints the picture of the you know the Germans is oh yeah military geniuses heroic people blah blah blah it's not true he says that he didn't want to go east oh okay this book provides all the evidence you need to know that yes he did want to go east he talked about the preemptive strike idea and because this is a thing I've mentioned before in a previous video I will link to it if you're watching this on TV he wants it a link poeple and the points out well actually in Helders diary he mentions the the pre-emptive he says no the Russians have no chance of attacking us and this was like in 1940 they know they're not gonna attack us but we're gonna attack them so if that doesn't undermine the entire thesis then there you go so there's a lot going on but then this shift in attitude then it allows the opportunity for the German generals to then write their own memoirs you see that Guderian – tone especially evolve on melih 'then we say his name and all the other ones as well and then this influences public opinion further and it's like all those Germans weren't so bad those children channels are on our side part of the Cold War yeah and it's like oh there's definitely a distinction between the German generals and the National Socialists and clearly they're not the same and there's no overlap at all and these miss carry on to this day and then they've lost to talk about some of the authors that are still to this day publishing books that are whitewashing the ver marked whitewashing the Germans as a whole except for the SS obviously and even father actually not doing that and he talks about one in particular which I have come across a couple of times now and have gone ah that's the problem well talk about a couple of them one is that they talk about is Frank Kurowski who I've got a book on the North African campaign and he's talking about that and his book is a little bit sort of he can't really treat you can trust it to some extent but not properly and the other one is the one I've got on the Kirwan pocket bridgehead Kurland the six battles of hares group of krill and now that Frank Crossley is a German guy he's dead now I don't 2011 but he's I mean I don't recommend this book at all don't buy this book I just don't it's terrible I'm kind of dipping in and out are they because I have no choice because very little has been written on Curlin so I'm having to use whatever sources I can possibly get but I wouldn't recommend it at all he he when there's and you've seen this with another guy as well actually and I've had to use this guy Verner haps he cannot see Sue's name let's see bees on the side happed harped captain whatever you call it this is one of the group North but he's written a few other ones and basically you see in both of these books whenever there's a what the play the german army doesn't commit any crimes doesn't do anything bad there's no mention of atrocity it's and it's all like holding on for dear lives there's you know amazing Germans you were heroically standing against the red tide of they outnumber as a bill zillions along and then you know when the Red Army commits a crime it's like look look look this crimes being committed by the communists it's not us but the Communists it's like it's so biased it's unreal and these guys are vastly guilty of it and in this book they don't mention heart but they do mentioned Frank Kurowski they called guru or a enthusiastically hey look you know the Germans are fighting on if you think of the typical Nazi propaganda the what these guys are doing are promoting Nazi propaganda in the post-war era I'm still to this day we're getting that post-war Nazi propaganda shoved down our throats from these books and as a result of this you've got a lot of people a lot of enthusiasts who are you know reading these books to like well the German generals were there they will know better than anybody else or I'm gonna believe them but unfortunately that's the wrong actually to have these guys have got a vested interest in denying the crimes and promoting this myth of least in front of as the Germans being these amazing they're fighting for the right cause and so on and so forth when in reality they're not they were the ones waging the war of aggression and the German army wasn't the professional machine of awesomeness that these guys painted out to be so the you know these guys in this book paint them as two gurus these these authors and they call the world war two enthusiastic say that you know these guys aren't looking at the bigger picture they're not they're not they're being influenced too much by the wrong people and yeah that so this book it's not perfect the the reviews online I've seen glance and how so very much yeah get this book a lot of people were against it those people who were against it for a they've got some valid criticisms like it doesn't go into everything which I mean to be fair it's a pretty decent book anyway and it's the only one I've seen there might be a couple of others but there's no only one I've seen that actually kind of addresses the issue so it's a very good first shot let's say like this pretty that way the criticism with these guys is that they've gone too far but I don't agree with that and the chrism is that they're not the gone too far but they're also not providing an all-around perspective really I don't agree I think this is a good book and the people who are disagreeing with it I've got a vested interest to try and defend Frank Kurowski and so and so forth because they believe in the myth they they will they want to believe this Panzer elite force of amazing they're Martinus and so they have a vested interest and there's also people who are at sea actual socialists or you know or whatever or they're just Germans and they're just nationalists which is a different thing by the way so these guys have got a vested interest in order to defend the the old ideas that are now out today and plus a lot of people just just not educated on it they don't understand they don't realize how actually there's been a lot of manipulation here as a result of the Cold War there's also empty communist state an anti socialists in general they are and there's this you know the whole myth of all well the Germans were fighting against socialism it's late but they were services they were finally against Bolshevism they weren't fighting in socialism that doesn't make any sense you know because let's get into it then socialism is the socialized man produces in common control according to angles 3 and of course we now all know it was like no it's socialized man the race in common control it's the same thing it's the exact same thing it's not capitalism if you think his capitalism read the vampire economy which you can get online for free as a free pdf that vampire economy written by gonzo rineman who's right who wrote it says primary source document written in 1939 I think and it's basic place to picture he's an either socialist he's a Marxist socialist he goes this isn't this is this is Marxism you know II thinks his Marx is about one point or at least he says that the German industrialists think it's Marxism and so they're reading Das Kapital in order to try and understand the German economy but yeah you still got people going on the side of the Nazis because they think all of this is this is anti-communism and it's all about capitalism it's like you again it's ignorance they just don't they don't understand it so there are a lot of myths and whatever else going on here and to this day people still believed myths and it's really frustrating and in terms of was the war a close-run thing I assume you're talking about the war so Union it's hard to see beyond that so um yeah I think that they could have won it but he would have taken a few different things to have made that happen a gallon a minute but you said will these revised theories and jaw know it some of them will do some of them will be correct this is the point of revisionist history and the idea of looking at the past from different perspectives and reinterpreting it the reason you do now is to train because if I say you know Hitler is blonde and there's something common was go on and go as no he's not blonde here's the evidence why okay we've all learned we've all learned that there was not blonde same thing applies lastly okay the the what the originally the turning point was Kursk no the turning point is not cursed that's way too late Kursk is just a blip on the map it's nothing to do you know the turning point of World War two Kursk is no one here it's way too late Stalingrad was then the turning point I think something red was the lab not standing up but the foul blob campaign was the last chance for German to win and once that failed there's no more chance but you could either be saying I would probably agree that the turning point happened before or Stalingrad and before the Caucasus and before foul Blau arguably that turning point was then seen as Moscow in 1941 but now historians are now looking at the Barbarossa campaign itself especially slow Minsk and this has all happened because the Soviet archives were kind of opened although not really you kind of have to make Putin to be allowed in them now because they were open for a bit than them closed for a bit they might still be open again I don't know well they're opening shutting all the time depending on what the what the Russians want but yeah so it's been revised to that and as your I'll dance the next question is second which is similar but basically yeah these this you know I say you think it's not meant as good the men hey I see you David Landis all your whoever thinks it's a style he thinks it's WA mask right yeah in 20 years time this this will be challenged in a new theory will come along and that's good now maybe we will come to the conclusion that school dance was a turning point in Barbarossa which is why I'm saying well some of these revised things we'll enjoy but then maybe the turning point happened earlier than that or whatever so and that's good we want that we want the revision in there because we don't want the sort of Germany was amazing we all love Frank or ASCII like we don't want that because it's long I we're getting the wrong perspective and we want truth not bias not trying to whitewash and you know select how older we don't want that so I think some theories will enjoy what we've got to always be changing and ready to accept the changes when they come out because it's all about the evidence the evidence changes if there's new evidence then we need to meet to adapt we need to adapt to that so yeah I hope that answers the question thing it does Alex has asked using the full power of 20/20 hindsight what strategy would you have pursued as the axis in order to win the war this is this is actually kind of a tough question but I'm gonna go with it so the reasons I think of the many of the Germans lost the war there's multiple reasons but this is the turning points kind of thing so I think the oil campaign is probably the most decisive and so they needed to win by October of 1941 which then says well Barbarossa needs to be won by 1941 now open sore Barbaro's so they seem to be doing everything militarily as good as they possibly could have done so you can't really fault them on the military aspect too much up until the beginning of Barbarossa so okay so then that suggests that all you need to do is is get the Barbarossa campaign to be one better you know fought better now there's a couple of ways of doing this you could say well we could get the British to surrender or peace out but we've we've seen that a few times Hitler sent peace feelers out prior to the fall of France and even after the fall of France so we've seen that and that didn't that didn't work so there's an issue there so then we come back earlier so we could either really go with a piece of like we'll give up all our territory but it's not really gonna happen or we're gonna keep on fighting so that yeah there's no there's no real way to get around that so I would say happen it must have happened earlier whatever it was to change the outcome of the war so I'm gonna save out they would have needed to guarantee that Britain and France wouldn't have got involved in the war in 1939 there's one possibility so they would have had since like they had the molotov-ribbentrop pact where you know the two socialist states got together so then you could say well that maybe they could have done the same with the West there's no reason why Hitler would not trust if he if he's willing to do a deal with Stalin who is his great ideological enemy because he's a Marxist socialist there's no reason why he wouldn't do with the capitalist West even though they are what Hitler calls internationally Jewish international Jewish finance that's what he refers to capitalism athlete doesn't capitalism in his mind is made by the Jews so there's no reason why if you can deal with the deal with the devil on one hand why can't I do two deals with the devil invade Poland make sure the West had secured a blank look guys we really want peace let's let the oil flow in and then we'll go east and if you look at what else Moz well Mosley was saying like he was like I don't want to go to war because Hitler wasn't going to war with the West he was going east you know Hitler was going east that's what he says this in Mayan Catholics does it in his second book which wasn't published to be fair but he said in my encounter at least he's going east he's not interested in the West to that extent he has to go west because the West declares war on Germany and Oswald Mosley is like well I don't want to get to war for Poland adults at the point right why should a poor British people on the line for Poland right would you not agree with I'm just saying that's what Mosley said so you can see the argument that is they actually through the West you had the option to not get involved now like the first world war Britain had the option of not getting involved because of Belgium but they chose to get involved because of Belgium so it's like no there was pros and cons there blah blah so it's like well they didn't have to intervene in Poland and then we could've just let I say we the British could have let the the Germans and the Soviets go at each other but they chose to get involved and that's when you know yeah I'm kind of dominate now all the way but so it's like if Hitler could have done a you know a Chamberlain Molotov pact in though in the West that could have that could have changed things entirely or Goering who was in charge of stockpiling oil prior to the war could have stockpiled much more oil prior to the war he only stockpiled half as much as he wanted to stockpile or as much as than the the army needed only half of it so it's like well he could have stopped power more but then you've got a problem of well the Nazi economy is not prepared for that because the problem with the Nazi economy is that it's gone autarkic because it doesn't believe in international Jewish finance so you've got this problem where they need to trade for more oil but they can't do it because they don't believe in exports and imports and blah blah they don't they reject the idea and this is back to basic economics if like if I'm if I'm selling bread and you've got money right we swap right you buy the bread and I buy your money and and you I sell you the bread and you take the bread so we're swapping right you can't do that on it internationally because it's like okay I got bread and oh let's say I've got a barrel of oil in the same America I've got a barrel of oil and you're German all right it's not okay I'm gonna give you this barrel of oil can you give me money in return and you're like well I don't know which Marx writes Marx it's like okay well I'm not gonna trade you this oil because I can't spin point marks or right marks in the USA so I need something back in return I need dollars and Jimmy doesn't have any dollars because Germany is no longer trading it's no longer exporting and importing so it has no ducks so that the trade breaks down adam to talks about this in his in wages structured by 1933 34 35 the nazi economies owls of world trade it ends world trade it becomes autarkic so that's that impedes the ability to import resources and that's when the start they start buying trucks and then taking the wheels off the trucks and selling those trucks for scrap because they need the rubber tires and they don't have enough rubber tires so it's like the the cannibalizing their own it's ridiculous but that's because it doesn't believe in capitalism he believes in socialism I can't wait for the comments in this summation of warm they hands on the battles going on in the comments section but yeah so so really I would say in order for Germany to win the war strategically it needs to probably stockpile more oil or get the British in the French to not declare war in 1939 or 40 and allow them to go east or fix the Barbarossa plan but how you fix that I don't really know it's hard to say so that speaks to you three options there but I think actually given the circumstances he did pretty much everything right up until the opening of Barbarossa if they could have just got more oil or more well he could have prevented or maybe got Britain's peace out in 1940 after the fall of France that could have changed the course of the war but I reckon they could they couldn't really that was their only options really I in my opinion anyway so can asks given your thesis about the importance of oil and the role of the British blockade in stopping German oil imports doesn't that lead toward the conclusion the British decision to stay in the war was the actual turning points of world war ii which means the critical events were the german failure to destroy the British Army at Dunkirk and Winston Churchill's subsequent decision to stay in again this is this depends on how you look at it technically yes but not really because Barbarossa was such a failure that could have been the turning point of war the war you could also say as I said before the British could have pieced out so that's what you're saying but they didn't have to get involved in the war in the first place in fact there's another question I'm not going to get into it today but a few people have asked about the French campaign in 1940 and I've been sort of looking at it a little bit and there's this perception I don't know if it's true and I need to double check it but that the French think that the British have dragged them into the war so it's like well actually if the British didn't declare war in 1914 1939 or they'd have been persuaded knots declare war but the French have followed in blah blah blah so in actuality there's a few different options here so it's not necessarily you know it's not Britain save the war it's like that's not necessarily case it's just Britain that's why Britain was decided to block the blockade and you could say the Battle of the Atlantic and obviously Battle of Britain these these events prevented resources from coming into Europe from the Americas and elsewhere around the world which blockaded the axis which gay ticking time bomb of of we need to get we need to win before the oil runs out which does in October ish 1941 so this is why Britain is important because they keep fighting there's so many times where they couldn't just stop fighting but that's why they're important it is so yes and no I don't if Britain doesn't save the war but it does it puts that ticking time bomb on the Germans to win the war by the end of 1941 or at least not count the Soviets sufficiently so that they can win in 1942 also it's not my thesis I entirely I believe I think it's a good thesis and that's why I spoke about it it was actually to promise thesis I just looked at it was like that's brilliant I'm making for be aware of it so it's actually to prot its first name Brian II was the one who came over there but it wasn't just him there's other people as well but his was the main one that I used so yeah actually pointed out Luke then asks I have a sort of general blanket question about troop quality for the Germans called 1943-44 in my mind they are both battle-hardened veterans that dominate the battlefield and old men and kids scared beyond belief I was hoping you could enlighten me to this this is this is the problem of getting a brush and just painting everything okay you can't paint every German as a battle-hardened veteran and you can't paint every German as an old man or young kid there are units that are veterans there are units that are rubbish there are units that are made up of kids there are units that are made up of all men they're army units that made up of young fit you know perfect age kind of men for the army good example of this ed was like are the RAF and excess were amazing just like okay don't look at the Totenkopf division in like the French campaign or even the Polish campaign in the post campaign I comment but but don't look it because of tone car it's like the the French counter-attack in the term car code and runs off right so you know again it's like individual divisions individual units yes you can sort of say well that was a veteran division that was a poor division or whatever but you can only blanket it now I will generally say 1941 1942 the Germans have got a lot of veterans in their army because they've been fighting for a little while although how much they were battle-hardened because in France they didn't do much fighting the Panzer divisions of the motorized divisions did but the follow-up infantry divisions didn't do very they did little fighting now in barber off so they did a lot of fighting and in 1942 they do a lot of fighting as well now 43 you have an influx of new recruits because the German army is at its peak in 1943 that's roughly the July period it's got more – I think 3 the axis total I think is 3 million 3.8 million or some other there's a lot of this is the most the German army ever gets in 1943 in size wise so you could say was a lot of influx of newbies in there but there's obviously a lot of battle-hardened units in there as well but the quality is starting to decline now because they've had to cut the training time because the desperately desperately needing manpower and then ninth – I mean it's in 1944 the situation is really bad as well but he gets massively worse after by gratia on operation black Ratheon so you could say after night after migrating on the the armies in desperate straits atenas now if there are veterans in there but it's now getting you know you get any old men and young boys kind of thing and the scraping the barrel by that point but certainly up until 1943 you've got a lot of veterans and you've got a lot of newbies but these guys are learning the ropes as well you know yeah they're in combat a lot so it's like they're going to learn just by observing and being in the combat so it's like well the the other new but they're also getting that experience as well so it's it's hard to say yeah okay they're all due to the new they're not capable of fighting but generally as the war progressed beyond I would say really sixth army gets destroyed us like a lot of veterans gone they replace the units but then they're all full of you know new recruits so that it's bad but then forty not really my 43 I say 44 onwards that's when you start dying that's when they start being old men and young boys it's really not until bag rattling that you get that so it's it's too general you can't like in the curling campaign there's units which are like veteran units amazing you know in terms of true quality then you've got the division next door which is useless you can't you can't blanket it that's kind of what I'm gonna say you can't get the portion painted that's what I was i but anyway Yoji can i hope is his name he says my comment is from world war ii 1942 the hitler's soft underbelly of 2011 by historian david Reynolds he stated a quote if remember correctly from Allen Brooke head of the British Imperial Army it stated that World War one and the high loss of officers was to cause the poor performance and poor leadership of the early British Army in North Africa do you believe this is a true statement or just normal course of an army learning and figuring out things and finding the right leaders similarly to threaten all in the US Army or countless Soviet military generals in the beginning of the Eastern Front okay so the idea that the British didn't have any officers at the end of the First World War was that confront like so the the army in the British Army in 1918 had no officers like you know they had officers and a lot of them one knew there are the moon young so this this I don't I don't know where this comes from interestingly Alan Brock could actually blame for some of the disasters in world war two so you know because in my opinion up see let's look at North Africa O'Connor Richard O'Connor's there and he has like two divisions okay I think he has three but one gets swapped out so he has two divisions and he wipes out the Italian term farming which is like ten divisions of 15 divisions or something stupid and he wipes that out the great one probably the greatest victory apart from maybe El Alamein of the entire second world war they always ever heard of it operation compass which again if you're watching this on TV he wants to delink bubble so you have good generals in World War two the problem is of course O'Connor gets captured along with John Condy comb comb we say his name these guys get captured when Raul attacks and then you kind of left with not really good generals really when you look at operation Crusader got enough said as Butler says most of the generals of rubbish the only one that's actually any good well there's Vivian Pope where he gets killed in an air crash and then there's gatehouse but he's just a brigadier so there's not the reason the British are performing poorly is because if you watch my operation Crusader in that part of the video I talk about the officers it's because they are the wrong officers in them in the role it's not because they're rubbish it's just like hey I'm an infantry guy why am i leading tanks hey I'm an artillery guy why am i leading tanks you know it's the wrong the wrong thing it's just the wrong like walking like is an Indian Army officer he has not the Indian army doesn't have tanks why he's he put in challenge of a tank army he doesn't you know a tank operation doesn't make any sense so and then calling him who again is an infantry guy he's just not the right guy for the job and God gets promoted over and over again for failing over and over again or not failing but not really doing much over and over again so it's like they put the wrong people in their own positions Montgomery he's got a lot of faults I'm not gonna defend him for everything but he's got a lot of faults but he is placed and he has got at least the right kind of mentality for military stuff he knows what he's doing in that sense so you could say that it's actually a case of they had the generals they just didn't use the right generals all the generals were captured or killed and they were left with the dregs in a sense and I would kind of go with that so this idea that oh yeah hi officer lost but not any nice like well okay hi officer loss of the British Army I office officer lost in the French army that's maybe why they got defeated what about the Polish army what about the Russian army or the Soviet Army what about the German army the German army fought World War one as well the German army got defeated in the First World War so every army had the same problem the Americans probably not so much but as I said in the purges video the the Americans start off with a tiny army and after expanding to this massive force technically the Germans do as well but the Americans even more so and Eisenhower's like it left Tenon's like in charge of the machine gun training facility or something like that and he gets murdered up the ranks and it becomes the theater commander what so to say that you know it's like and what the Americans do and I said this in the Burgess video the Americans get rid of their all their old generals because they know the useless I think there's a only Wand old-style general who remains and the rest again are going rid of and the Soviets have their purges which they probably did for political reasons for Stalin all the worse not sure why but yeah that actually benefits that the problem with the Soviets isn't that they had they didn't have enough good offices away because they got annihilated in the first war and their first battle Barbarossa and then they have to somehow rebuild their army whilst also facing the Germans whilst their economy you know they're outnumbered now it just it's just a disaster for them it's nothing to do really with the offices are legal for office there's no you haven't there's a lot of move decent as well and it's the same with the British she's like all the officers are poor not all of them but they had the wrong guys and the wrong places in my opinion I can't talk about the Far Eastern Front Kazaam and studied it properly but that's the reason why I say it's why I don't think this Allen Brooke thing is correct it's too it's too simple and it doesn't make sense when you look into the details of especially the fact that oh yeah then they lost that many offices in the first what 20 years have passed 20 years of past there's no and every army would suffer the same fate it's not the case it's absolutely not the case Ben has asked do you play any World War two strategy games board or video any particularly thing do a good job of capturing the strategic decision-making of the real thing the only the only series that I could probably recommend his hearts of iron thoughts well hearts vying for I think needs a better order of battle system you need to not entirely but you need a system like the hiding our hearts mind three but you also need logistics they don't do a very good job oh no logistics you troops go slower that's not what logistics is about plus I don't think the attrition rate in hardline is right you need to lose more men in the attacks the Germans lost a load of men especially in Barbarossa they lose in in fact the – sickle courts towards the French coastal do this backwards it's that way for you guys the man is tickle court they lose like half their tanks right they lose some like that's they lose six when you really have six one we can lose half of them I forget the inertia they lost a lot of their time and you know this isn't represented in the hearts of mine three four whatever it just not represent it so I think that hardline does it follow the only one that comes to mind which is actually you know it gets it mostly right I guess but I wouldn't say that it's it's just it's got too many it's too much wrong with it if they intrude if I don't want to say that should have been introduced with the hearts of my three order battle because that was just too clicky you just I mean maybe have the option of doing that because I think it's too simple now you just put everybody in one army just greased it's like that doesn't make any sense like you need to have cause you know divisional level and I think you all should have battalions battalion you should be able to you should be able to get you stronger ships to Italian our one division of throwing and other that's what the Germans did you should be able to do that and you can't do it so that yeah that's to me that's what it should be doing so hearts of my four was in my opinion you got it right I think in a lot of ways I like the industry way did it I like the lot of lot of stuff I like the fact there's more provinces I like a lot of it I don't like the the order of battle I don't like the fact that you don't have battalions I don't like the fact that the logistics is wrong if they fix those three things I understand hearts of iron every other game that I think of doesn't really come close I think I've heard of Gary Gibbs B's war in the east I actually bought it for myself as a Christmas present in 2016 and I haven't ever installed it all played it so I need to do that but that's not strategy anyway that's more Barbarossa so with and I've heard that's pretty good whether it's true no I don't know but yeah his terms of strategic decision-making I can't think of any others that come close to heart of mine so after line all the way the Sutton Jenny asked if you were a young man in the UK in 1939 and had to sign up for the frontline service until the end of the war what would you sign up for and why well I wouldn't do Navy you know won't do half loss you know the RAF I wouldn't do that because I'm not a Navy or Air Force guy so I wouldn't really go for that so I've had to do frontline service as well I was like all the districts but no the frontline service I don't really so the problem that Britta cause he say in the UK the UK didn't exist in 90 their Great Britain in 1939 they didn't have very good tanks so that Matilda would be good no they didn't I don't think the average silence and I'm not really a tank guy so I'm gonna say no to that which means I kind of left with infantry so I'm gonna go with the infantry and I'm gonna go with single-shot rifles are not very good so I'm going with a Bren gun so I always sit there in North Africa with a Brendan Gaughan that's me I think I'd be good just sit there I cannot give you suppressing fire that's that's fine I can manage that image now yeah Brendan team saw it I know also I do I wouldn't be an officer because I'm not part of the upper class so if you believe in class so I'm not by that so I wouldn't be I won't be an officer unfortunately so yeah I think I think bring gonna why because I've ruled her to hell so I can't think of anything else why would I I don't know I just think it'd be interesting be interesting it won't be very good probably wouldn't survive but it would be interesting for five minutes when I fire my machine gun at it sank anyway so we start with a Richard Stokes question let's end with the Richard Stokes question who psyched more generals in World War two Hitler or Churchill you want me to count right I mean just no no no no ha no ceremony count okay I'm gonna say Hitler why cuz Churchill had like three divisions it like North Africa Hitler had three army groups it's going to be Hitler there's no way it's gonna be Churchill you actually decide quite a few I don't know about the Middle East not Middle East I don't know about the Far East to be fair so he might have sucked a lot more there but no Hitler all the way over the finalist is that it's much well I was thinking Christmas songs so ya know Hitler all the way who sucks more generals in world sooo Hitler or Stalin oh no I have no idea I don't even know what to begin with that I wish there was a list actually maybe there is a list if anyone knows of the list of who you know sacs generals and Lord say that'd be great but don't forget though Hitler while he sacked a lot he didn't shoot a lot people like all he shot loads of his generals no he didn't there's a guy at a remarketing say the bridge that guy got shot there's a few people shot how they didn't get shots okay finally ended up in a concentration camp but how they didn't get shots did Aryan didn't get a shot he got dismissed those people got dismissed could not being the Fury's orders and as you'll see in the curling campaign there was even generals who just went I'm not listening to this guy I'm gonna do my own thing and they didn't get shots so I just wanted to point that out so for who you sacked more general Zahl or to you know Hitler Hitler all the way

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. Wait.. I'm really confused now. Do you call everything above an NCO an officer? Everyone from OF1 to OF10 is an officer? You don't have a sub group for generals and staff officers? I always assumed you had the same system as we have in Norway where OF1 to OF10 (although we only go to OF9 in Norway) are strictly speaking officers, but there's also sub groups to more clearly distinguish what sort of officers we're talking about. So when I hear officers I think OF1 and OF2, staff officers are OF3 to OF6, and the Generality/Admiralty are OF7 to OF10. I've heard you say Admiralty, but never "Generailty". I know the word means something else, but it serves as both meanings in Norwegian, "Generalitet". Do you not have a word for "the generals" as you have for "the admirals"? The way ours are split up roughly equates to tactical, strategical and operational level, with overlap and exceptions of course. Not so much in the Navy and Coast guard of course since many ships are so small they don't warrant a rank of OF3 or higher, so even though the ships commander is only OF2, he/she will still have strategic responsibilities to some extent, but in those cases it's mostly done by staff officers at a naval base.

    So, yeah… A bit confused here.. Isn't this roughly how the workload is divided in other armed forces?

  2. Would I be in Soviet Union in 1941 (Since I was born there). I would probably end up in signals( since I ended up in signals during my service). Well I wouldn't envy my self… I would probably die due to a Stukas bombing, or shot by a sniper, or blown by a mine when pulling the line or get captured and starved to death in concentration camp, as alternative option may be I would escaped and join partisans.. or even simpler would just die from diarrhea .. nah I wouldn't really like to get into this episode of human history.

  3. Sometimes historiography actually goes in reverse. Consider the case The Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor. Among armature military historians it was (not sure if this is still the case – hence -was) practically a standard reference book on the subject. However there is another book The Russians and Berlin, 1945 Erich Kuby who was German veteran of the Eastern Front turned west German journalist. The book was written in 1969 . The format of his book is practically identical to that of Beevors, but it is much more sympathetic to Soviet cause. You would think the opposite would be the case, but I guess actually physically being on the EF there gave him different perspective on things which in turn allowed to view post-war German mythology with a very critical eye.
    Consider these 2 quotes:
    “Before continuing our discussion of events in Berlin, I should like to say that I am fully aware that what follows will tax the [German] reader's patience more than any other subject discussed in this book. When it comes to the question of Rus¬sian outrages, few Germans are prepared to be objective, except perhaps those who were too young at the time to feel very strongly about the matter. But it is just the younger generation who ought to take an interest, because Soviet acts of violence in Berlin and the way in which they have been presented have had crucial results on West Germany's attitude to the Soviet Union and to Communism as a whole.
    For many Germans the whole subject of the Russian occupa¬tion of Berlin is simply reduced to the idea that the Red Army came into the city, raped German women, and left again. They neither know nor care that the facts were far more complicated. They do not ask what sort of people these Red Army men were, nor do they ever ask themselves what the motives were. Nobody has tried to explain the facts with any degree of objectivity. The idea that a Russian intellectual of Jewish origin by the name of Ilya Ehrenburg was able to order millions of Russian soldiers to violate German women is as widespread among Germans as it is ridiculous…”

    “Of course it was not only the servility of 1945 that had to be compensated for. In Russia, the German Wehrmacht was beaten as resoundingly as the French had been at Sedan and the Tsarist armies at Tannenberg. Self-respect demanded that this blow be played down at all costs, and the excuse that the Russians had only succeeded thanks to American lend-lease was not enough. The rape of Berlin women, while the men stood idly by, not only dotted the i of the Russian victory but also proved an ideal opportunity for psychological revenge. Not only had the Russians failed to win the war by their own efforts, but they had gone on to rape countless innocent women. In this psychological climate, any objective investigation of the facts would only have proved an embarrassment, and so no such investigation ever took place. Everybody knew somebody who was raped or at least somebody who knew somebody else who knew. . . . Hence it was an easy matter to establish the myth that two entire Soviet Army Groups had collectively ravished the women of Berlin and that, to make things worse, they had done so on the orders of a Jewish writer in Moscow. This myth served a double purpose: by generalizing the events, it helped to attribute the criminal acts of individuals to the Soviet people as such, and at the same time it helped to explain why individual German men should have done nothing to stem the excesses. 'What could we have done?' is the answer repeated a hundred times over to all inquiries about what happened in Berlin at the time. This counter-question means : `What could we have done against a million organized sex maniacs?' and the expected reply is: 'Well, yes, in the circum¬stances nobody could really have expected you to behave like men.'
    However, the women never took anything but a realistic view of the matter. They, who know better than any man what happened at the time, have quite a different tale to tell. No woman who was raped or was close enough to the events, is on record as claiming that, by raping them, the Russian soldiers wanted to humiliate German womanhood or even a single German woman. What these women really thought has been summed up for us in Horst Schiltzler's doctoral thesis' : 'There were men and officers who were so misguided as to believe that they could do as they liked in Fascist Germany.'
    That was exactly it. Russian violence was not only due to the Red Army entering Germany as victors but also their instinctive reaction to all the German atrocities they had witnessed and experienced at home. It was their natural response to the master race itself and to Soviet accounts of its doings. (Here Ehrenburg bears some responsibility, though it is only fair to add that he never made a single unfounded claim about German crimes in the Soviet Union.)”

    Can you even imagine Beevor writing something like that ?

  4. I disagree with your economic views, the way you define socialism and capitalism in particular.

    under your definition, every system is inherently socialist and capitalism has never existed (and never will). Redefining socialism to fit the definition of every economic system only makes things more confusing.

    Nazis were anti-capitalist and anti-communist according to themselves.

  5. Hey TIK, question about changing Barbarossa. I know you have said in other videos that one option was to focus entirely on the south in 1941 and only Moscow in 1942 because Germany needed oil. If the Germans had focused in the south, could their logistics have even made it to the oil fields in 1941? They seemed to already be stretched to their limits.

  6. Seeing how massive the Soviet union became dictatorial authoritarian. now looking at the EU. When the Berlin wall fell did the communists just slip into the system and rot the beginnings of the EU from the inside out?. Because the EU just keep getting more authoritarian and you get more similarities between the Soviet Union . Is there a cycle of history getting ready to repeat it self With A goal of the United States of Europe European army?. curious times but interesting trends

  7. If you want a really good analysis of the German National Socialist movement and the German Socialist movements the early 20th century The Road To Serfdom by F.A. Hayek is very informative on the two groups. There’s also an audio book of the definitive edition so that’s cool.

  8. TIK, the Kingdom of Great Britain was founded in 1707 by the Union of Scotland and England. It became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland following the Union with Ireland in 1801. Following the partition of Ireland and the independence of the Irish Free State in 1922 it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland, which it has remained until today. In 1939 the United Kingdom was 100% a thing.

  9. So Halder is the ultimate responsible for much ww2 writing but still Rommel is probably the greatest German myth from the war? Yeah, that sounds like typical Harlder sheer incompetence.

  10. TIK, I'd also recommend "The NAZI Dictatorship – Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation" by Ian Kershaw.

  11. OK starting 1938, as germany never should have invaded Czecholslovakia, OK I would have invaded Poland still but an armistice and peace deal with the French and British. no war with France and British. When the Japanese attack pearl harbor , dont declare war on the USA.

  12. I have a comment, on what I would have done as Germany , Axis, to win ww2. NEVER DECLARE WAR ON THE USA. or Never have attacked the USA in the first place in the case of Japan.

  13. I remember back in the cold war, it was hard to get unbiased info on the Soviet contribution in WW2. What introduced me to have an interest in the Eastern Front was as mentioned before my board wargame hobby, games like the Russian Front, Avalon hill SPI games inspired me to delve more into the subject. Even in these 70s and 80s board wargames you get the bias that the Germans in the east were mostly defeated by massive hordes of low quality Soviet troops , with new information in the 90s and onwards, you get a evolution of board wargames set in the Eastern Front and the Soviets get better units and you see the evolution of the Soviet army in these games.

  14. As for the rest of the WW2 fronts , I had to later dig up books on em. which was fuelled by my board wargame hobby

  15. Coming from the Philippines, I remember our 70s 80s cold war school history text books barely touch on the Eastern front, very minimal mention like a few mentions on stalingrad, Barbarossa and Berlin. you can fit the mentions on in a small paragraph. WW2 in our text books much focuses on the Japanese invasion, occupation and defeat in the Philippines as well as the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan to end the war(no mention was even made on the Soviet invasion of manchuria, Kuriles). Almost no mention on the war in China, Western front is gvien some mention. As for the rest of the pacific front, not much mentions on the rest. If you ask Filipinos on the Eastern front, they barely known anything about it. if you mention stalingrad, theyll say, hey its the movie haha

  16. 1) The Nazis never attempted to abolish private property.
    2) Many industrialists sponsored and greatly benefited from the Nazi state.
    3) The Nazis seized some sectors of the economy and placed them under state control, but they privatized other sectors of the economy. The term 'privatization' was coined precisely to described NAZI economic policies, which were highly acclaimed by many in the business community in the US and other Western countries.
    4) Nazism was a reaction to Marxism and other forms of cultural "degeneration", not an instantiation of it.
    5) If we're going to allow that the Nazis were "socialist" on the basis that they instituted policies for their favored social group at the expense of another social group, or because they encouraged people from all classes to share in a "great national project" and to place "the nation's" interests above their own, then we'd better be prepared to call US imperialism, British imperialism, German imperialism or Belgian imperialism "socialist", since all of these had strong elements of racial in-group chauvinism, allusions to "Manifest Destiny", "the White Man's Burden", strong state intervention in the economy when it was perceived necessary to maintain hegemony/advantage over rivals, etc.

  17. Thank you for pointing out that Capitalism is NOT Fascism, Nazism, Communism or Socialism and explaining that clearly.

  18. Tik, would you please STOP using secondary or tertiary sources. Primary research or nothing. Otherwise you're just entering the academic slanging match. Dispute this succession of crappy sources with cited primary.

  19. I've lost repect for you tik thought you were on the good guys side now you're just a balding British wanker

  20. Listening to you Germans all bad and shouldn’t of been able to defeat a Boy Scout troop. Yes anybody writing about themselves will be biased including your conclusions.

  21. Hey! I wanted to get in touch with you to discuss a business opportunity. Is there an email I can reach you at? Cheers!

  22. Hey I just wanna point out that very recently, the US Army University Press releases a series of very well researched documentary of the Battle of Stalingrad that went over the campaign and a few key points of contention during the battle (Grain elevator, Red October factory, etc …). It went over the action some times blow by blow down to company level, day-by-day. The obvious intended audiences are military officers since it makes frequent references to US army manuals and doctrines. The production level is very high: maps, front lines, unit markers, archived footage, etc …

    Everyone interested should check it out. They are obviously the same outfit that produced Glantz, who published several Leavenworth papers (freely available "light" versions of his books; dating, however from the 80s so the document and archives ar more limited).

    One of the episode here:


    TIK should obviously see what has already been published and adjust to not producing duplicative work.

  23. "If you support roads and fire departments, then you support socialism!"

    TIK: Nazi Germany was socialist


  24. I'd like a full video on nazi germany being capitalism/fascism/socialistic/authoritarian
    I've argued myself in the past that Nazi germany was capitalistic/authoritarian/fascist (Hitler as king/emperor, the industrialiized military complex as capitalistic and the regime as fascist)
    Where you state "socialized men", that's essentially everyone except the jews, which is the fascist part.
    He did subsidise the military complex and they were openly competing for contracts (which would be apart of the capitalistic aspect)
    But when it came down to it, it was mostly just a facade, since Hitler mostly just did what he wanted to.

    I'd like to hear your input on this in greater details, comparing it to identical aspect of other countries.
    Am I wrong in those assumptions, if so, I'd gladly take input from everyone.

  25. You should try DECISIVE CAMPAIGNS-BARBAROSSA. It is a good game but more important – one plays as Franz Halder. 🙂

  26. If you should always think critical und should ask yourself is this really the case? Then why take so many historians mein kampf as manual to hitlers politics? Hitler wrote mein kampf in 1923 when he can't even dream of being germanys political leader. Then in 1933 this was ten years ago and the whole situation was another i think

  27. 2017 publication Hidden History by Garry Docherty and James MaGregor will give enough info to show how WW2 began. Also Arguably by Christopher Hitchens Chapter on the Prince of piffle (Charles) illuminating on the present state of affairs on Islam. Both free at the local library.

  28. Hitler called his party socialist to fool uninformed workers. Socialism was a very popular concept gathering strength at that time. BUT the wealthy and powerful understood, The Daily Mail, the Bush Family, Ford, Krupps all supported Hitler, and it was not for wealth distribution. In the 1930s it was well understood who was on the two sides. The rich, the military, the anti semites , the free corps, the scared middle classes, and on the other the poor, the Trade Unions, the communists, Jews the Slavs. If any of the SA had any illusion of a social revolution that ended with their murder. A signal to the Krupps that they had nothing to fear. Hitler was going to destroy their greatest threat the reds. The nazi hatred of the Jews was code for Communists. The Jew/Communist the outsider without nation, the internationalist. Hence the use of nationalism to defend capitalism from real revolutionary soviet change.

  29. You can move around STUG battalions in HOI4 but it’s not that obvious. What you do is you have 2 infantry division templates, one with Stugs and one without. To move the battalion simply change the template of the division with stugs to the one without and change the template of the division you want to stugs to go in. The AGs go back into our stockpile and then are delivered to your troops using the reinforcement system.

  30. Why would anyone want the Germans to win? But anyway, one thing often left out is Rommel didn't obey his orders to hold in North Africa, thereby making it necessary to divert hundreds of tanks, planes, reinforcements, fuel, ammunition from the Soviet Union in 41. If he hadn't gone gallivanting around Libya and Egypt it would have changed a lot in the Soviet Union. But they still would have lost, just longer.

  31. Hitler declaring war on the US seemed like a "Hail Mary" move to get Japan to fight USSR. Maybe war was lost around that time.

  32. The Germans knew they couldn’t win after Stalingrad, after Kursk they knew they would lose..

    Gary Grigsbys War in the East is amazing and makes HOI4 look like an arcade game.

Related Post